Anyone else read what happens in Batman Inc #8? So pissed off. One more reason to hate Grant Morrison.

One more reason to hate Grant Morrison, the person who created and introduced the character in the first place? I'm sure people similarly might have said 'omg Alan Moore killed off Rorschach! god, I hate him, what a shit writer!'

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Well apparently DC are saying dead is dead in the New 52, Harry but even though I'm doubtful of that I have this feeling that this maybe one instance where they will leave a character dead, at least for a considerable amount of time. Many are saying that Harper Row from Snyder's Batman is going to take over the Robin mantle. Which if I'm honest doesn't interest me in the slightest. I do agree as well though, that Batman Inc has felt completley like its set in its own canon since the reboot and its a bit shocking that such a title would have this much of a profound effect suddenly on the rest of the canon.

And Olaf, what does your post even mean? I'm not entitled to dislike what a writer does with a character if its their baby? I used to love Morrison's work but he's been a self-indulgent, pretencious, nonsenical hack for some time now. If you want to get technical, he didn't create Bruce and Talia's son, Mike W. Barr did back in 1987. And whilst he may have been responsible for re-introducing him and forming the basis of Damian's character, I'd argue that out of all the writers to have handled him since, Morrison has been one of the worst! Fuck, look what he's done to Talia, turned her from an interested, layered character with conflicting issues into a fucking panto villian who date-raped Batman!

I'm angry really for two reasons in particular: One, Damian has evolved so much over the last seven years that he's become one of my favourite characters in DC and two, Snyder's Death of the Family was a much more powerful ending, with all the Bat family members, losing their trust and faith in Bruce, including his own son, Damian. I was looking forward to the ramifications of this on their partnership and relationship and how Bruce would have to bridge the gap between them. I thought it was much more effective that Snyder decided not to actually kill anyone off, and not, as many predicted have Bruce turn his back on the others, but for the exact opposite to happen. Now, instead of seeing the fallout from that we're just gonna have to deal with Damian's pointless death.

As far as I know Batman Inc is far from the best selling title so it seems even more bizzare that Dc would let Robin die, in a shitty, wacky title that doesn't deserve to have the name Batman attached to it by a has-been, hack writer! And as for the comparision to Moore, Olaf, no, just no.

He’s an Al Ghul as well as a Wayne, if the Lazarus Pit doesn’t feature somewhere along the line I’ll be very surprised.

It does seem to be a killing for the sake of killing though and It’s pissed me off as well because I liked the character quite a bit too. Morrison’s Batman & Robin with Dick as Batman was probably the most fun I’ve had with a Batman title for years. I’m not saying it was the best Batman run in years, just the one I had most fun with due to the rivalry between Dick and Damien so, yeah, it’s a bit of a pisser to be honest.

The thing is though is that this should end Batman, the trauma of losing his son on top of everything else he’s lost, especially considering the fallout of The Death of a Family, should be too much. I don’t think I’ll be able to buy that he’d be able to carry on. Anyway, we’ll see how it goes I suppose, there’s no point bitching about it too much because what’s done is done and we’ll just have to see what the ramifications are for the DCU I guess.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

I've never seen Batman Inc. as having any connection with any of the regular Bat titles or New 52 DCU anyway. It's always been completely stand alone. I'll be amazed if it effects any of the other books.

As for the issue itself, I liked it. Morrison's writing was much less insane than usual & Chris Burnahm's art was magnificent, & the cover was a great nod to Batman R.I.P.

I've never seen Batman Inc. as having any connection with any of the regular Bat titles or New 52 DCU anyway. It's always been completely stand alone. I'll be amazed if it effects any of the other books.

As for the issue itself, I liked it. Morrison's writing was much less insane than usual & Chris Burnahm's art was magnificent, & the cover was a great nod to Batman R.I.P.

It will, Peter Tomasi confirmed that it'll have an effect on his Batman & Robin title HERE

Actually, reading that interview it does seem that this will be a permanent thing, or a long term thing at least, permanent is a big word to be bandying about when it comes to comic deaths.

That sucks to be honest, especially considering it happens in a title that doesn't really adhere to the current cannon.

< Message edited by Harry Tuttle -- 28/2/2013 11:31:31 AM >

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

Well that's just stupid. All the batshit crazy stuff that's happened in Batman Inc over the current run has never effected the other Bat titles & vice-versa. It's never been included in any of the Bat-family crossovers. Why change it now? Eejits!

ORIGINAL: Vadersville And Olaf, what does your post even mean? I'm not entitled to dislike what a writer does with a character if its their baby? I used to love Morrison's work but he's been a self-indulgent, pretencious, nonsenical hack for some time now. If you want to get technical, he didn't create Bruce and Talia's son, Mike W. Barr did back in 1987. And whilst he may have been responsible for re-introducing him and forming the basis of Damian's character, I'd argue that out of all the writers to have handled him since, Morrison has been one of the worst! Fuck, look what he's done to Talia, turned her from an interested, layered character with conflicting issues into a fucking panto villian who date-raped Batman!

No, Mike Barr did not create Damian. An unnamed baby in a 1987 issue was not Damian until Grant Morrison made that connection. My point is that hating Grant Morrison for the actual fact of killing off the character is a logical fallacy when Grant Morrison is the reason why the character exists in the first place. I don't have a problem with your opinion on the Talia thing because it's a totally different deal (ie that's an interpretation of an existing character that you didn't like, fair enough). You can be angry at the actual *way* in which he's killed off Damian - although you'd be wrong, since the issue in question is actually quite poignant and well-written in a way that counterpoints the overall tone of the book and brings it into a new perspective - but otherwise I see it as a kind of cherrypicking to support a particular version of events. To be fair, you've gone on to say that you dislike his version of the character, but the initial post read like 'HE KILLED OFF MY FAVOURITE CHARACTER, I HATE HIM (but I won't mention that he created my favourite character because then I can't hate him)'

All that said, I'm still put off by the industry tactic of killing off a major character in order to generate interest and almost always find it a largely pointless move. In fact, I'd be massively surprised if it was 100% Grant Morrison's idea like you seem to think it is, as opposed to the ubiquitous market-driven demands of editorial mandate. But I've become more philosophical about it in recent years and have decided that since comic book death is an inevitable fact of life, I'm going to base my critique on how well it's written, and Morrison has done a really good job with this issue.

alas, you used the term 'pretentious'. Why is Grant Morrison's work pretentious? I'm interested to know because a lot of people say this, even though I'd say that he doesn't claim knowledge of things he doesn't actually know about. What he does know is silver age comics, surrealism and postmodern philosophy, which I think is what he focuses on in his work. Or is he pretentious for employing those subjects in his work?

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

More for not knowing when to rein it in. Morrison is either sublime or bloody awful with rarely anything in between. His tendency to flit from one side to the other is pretty common. With Morrison I have noted if he holds onto a character or writes one for a long time then he tends to stop reining in his excesses which is a shame. That said I disliked the character anyway.

ORIGINAL: Vadersville And Olaf, what does your post even mean? I'm not entitled to dislike what a writer does with a character if its their baby? I used to love Morrison's work but he's been a self-indulgent, pretencious, nonsenical hack for some time now. If you want to get technical, he didn't create Bruce and Talia's son, Mike W. Barr did back in 1987. And whilst he may have been responsible for re-introducing him and forming the basis of Damian's character, I'd argue that out of all the writers to have handled him since, Morrison has been one of the worst! Fuck, look what he's done to Talia, turned her from an interested, layered character with conflicting issues into a fucking panto villian who date-raped Batman!

No, Mike Barr did not create Damian. An unnamed baby in a 1987 issue was not Damian until Grant Morrison made that connection. My point is that hating Grant Morrison for the actual fact of killing off the character is a logical fallacy when Grant Morrison is the reason why the character exists in the first place. I don't have a problem with your opinion on the Talia thing because it's a totally different deal (ie that's an interpretation of an existing character that you didn't like, fair enough). You can be angry at the actual *way* in which he's killed off Damian - although you'd be wrong, since the issue in question is actually quite poignant and well-written in a way that counterpoints the overall tone of the book and brings it into a new perspective - but otherwise I see it as a kind of cherrypicking to support a particular version of events. To be fair, you've gone on to say that you dislike his version of the character, but the initial post read like 'HE KILLED OFF MY FAVOURITE CHARACTER, I HATE HIM (but I won't mention that he created my favourite character because then I can't hate him)'

All that said, I'm still put off by the industry tactic of killing off a major character in order to generate interest and almost always find it a largely pointless move. In fact, I'd be massively surprised if it was 100% Grant Morrison's idea like you seem to think it is, as opposed to the ubiquitous market-driven demands of editorial mandate. But I've become more philosophical about it in recent years and have decided that since comic book death is an inevitable fact of life, I'm going to base my critique on how well it's written, and Morrison has done a really good job with this issue.

alas, you used the term 'pretentious'. Why is Grant Morrison's work pretentious? I'm interested to know because a lot of people say this, even though I'd say that he doesn't claim knowledge of things he doesn't actually know about. What he does know is silver age comics, surrealism and postmodern philosophy, which I think is what he focuses on in his work. Or is he pretentious for employing those subjects in his work?

This whole post is balls. A logical fallacy? How? You're just telling me that I'm not allowwed to be angry with Morrison for killing a character off because they "created" them in the first place. So by your reasoning, any child who hates their parents for *insert life-fucking incident* here should just be grateful that they were conceived in the first place?

I also said that Barr created "Bruce and Talia's son" and that Morrison was responsible for forming the basis of Damian. The character has evolved a long way from the one Morrison introduced in Batman and Son, over the course of seven years and many different writers. It's that character development that has made me grow to like the character and actually very little of Morrison's contribution to the character besides his intial introduction, but of course, I have no right to hold an opinion that killing the character off was a dick move, because any opinion other than yours is incorrect right? I mean, according to you, if we don't like the way Damian died either, we're wrong.

Grant Morrison has become very pretentious. You only have to read an interview with him from the last few years to see how high he is on himself. He fancies himself as a literary god, when in my opnion he's a burnt out hack who used to scribble out a well-written, interesting tale but became so hopelessly self-indulgent and wacky that the majority of his recent stuff reads like a stoned conversation between him and imaginary friend.

At least you're being diplomatic. In the same vein - A) that's a ridiculous analogy and B) if you weren't being completely obtuse then you'd understand that actually you're perfectly entitled to having a problem with what happened. My point is that it's illogical to use it as a reason to hate Grant Morrison. And I acknowledged your point about you preferring other writers' versions of the character, just as I acknowledged your dislike of Morrison's version of Talia. And as for me saying it's wrong to think that was badly handled and how any opinion different to mine is incorrect (such is my burden), that was - gasp! - my opinion of the issue in question. Have you read it?

And stop misusing the word 'pretentious'. Please. Not everyone who thinks they're good at something but isn't can be called 'pretentious' (other it would be used by people to describe everything they don't li- oh). The term refers to a misplaced sense of importance or intellectual worth, when Grant Morrison's lesser work - while guilty of a lot of things - isn't guilty of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

More for not knowing when to rein it in. Morrison is either sublime or bloody awful with rarely anything in between. His tendency to flit from one side to the other is pretty common. With Morrison I have noted if he holds onto a character or writes one for a long time then he tends to stop reining in his excesses which is a shame. That said I disliked the character anyway.

I think this is fair - I don't consider it the same thing as pretentiousness, but I can see why it would annoy people (and I find his work that I dislike equally exasperating, personally). On the flipside though, I actually think that it's the kind of setup that means his best work could only be produced by him, even if that means some real stinkers are inevitable. I'll be the first to admit he's not for everyone, but I can totally respect reasoned responses like yours rather throwing out the P-word and getting upset about him killing off characters (which is, like, a really common occurrence in comic books).

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

At least you're being diplomatic. In the same vein - A) that's a ridiculous analogy and B) if you weren't being completely obtuse then you'd understand that actually you're perfectly entitled to having a problem with what happened. My point is that it's illogical to use it as a reason to hate Grant Morrison.

Why? Why am I unable to dislike a writer for killing off a character (I've also said that's not the only reason, so you're missing a few points as well) because they introduced the character?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

And I acknowledged your point about you preferring other writers' versions of the character, just as I acknowledged your dislike of Morrison's version of Talia. And as for me saying it's wrong to think that was badly handled and how any opinion different to mine is incorrect (such is my burden), that was - gasp! - my opinion of the issue in question. Have you read it?

Then you need to be a little bit more clear on what is your opinion and stop dressing them up like facts. the comment in question simply says "You can be angry at the actual *way* in which he's killed off Damian - although you'd be wrong". Where does that mention your opinion? I mean, you're actually telling me what I can and cannot feel. "You can be angry" Oh, can I? thank you. Thank you for allowwing me to be angry at someone. And yeah, I read it. Hated it. Not surprising though as I've hated Batman Inc since it started.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

And stop misusing the word 'pretentious'. Please. Not everyone who thinks they're good at something but isn't can be called 'pretentious' (other it would be used by people to describe everything they don't li- oh). The term refers to a misplaced sense of importance or intellectual worth, when Grant Morrison's lesser work - while guilty of a lot of things - isn't guilty of that.

I said that he was high on himself and fancied himself as a literary god. I'd call that a misplaced sense of importance or intellectual worth, so pretenious, for me, is actually a very apt adjective for Morrison.

Well, you opened with 'one more reason to hate Grant Morrison' (not to mention your tactful change of thread title) which to me suggests that you don't hate him for killing off a character you like, but you hated him before now (of course, that's fine). It's an absurd reason to hate a writer because A) he created the character in question, and if he doesn't create the character then the character can't get killed off in the first place, thus sparing you your current frustration; B) it's hilariously naive to think that he won't be back; C) most importantly, a writer doesn't tend to go rogue and kill off a major character without telling anyone. This was almost certainly an editorial decision and discussed with the entire creative team. Don't like how he wrote it? Fine. Actually placing the blame at the feet of one writer (one who you of course have a pre-existing problem with) for a major event of crossover significance? Nah. Of course, if a writer you liked wrote this issue, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

quote:

Then you need to be a little bit more clear on what is your opinion and stop dressing them up like facts.

Srsly? Okay, imagine all of my posts have the words 'in my opinion' appended to the end of every sentence. Because they're my opinion.

quote:

I said that he was high on himself and fancied himself as a literary god. I'd call that a misplaced sense of importance or intellectual worth, so pretenious, for me, is actually a very apt adjective for Morrison.

How do you imagine fancying oneself as a literary god? Because he doesn't (in my opinion). He's regularly and at length written about comic books having an aesthetic value beyond their assumed importance, but his work is regularly quite irreverent and self-effacing (in my opinion). You seem to have a problem with the topics he explores in his work, but that doesn't mean it's misplaced in the genre (in my opinion).

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Well, you opened with 'one more reason to hate Grant Morrison' (not to mention your tactful change of thread title) which to me suggests that you don't hate him for killing off a character you like, but you hated him before now (of course, that's fine). It's an absurd reason to hate a writer because A) he created the character in question, and if he doesn't create the character then the character can't get killed off in the first place, thus sparing you your current frustration; B) it's hilariously naive to think that he won't be back; C) most importantly, a writer doesn't tend to go rogue and kill off a major character without telling anyone. This was almost certainly an editorial decision and discussed with the entire creative team. Don't like how he wrote it? Fine. Actually placing the blame at the feet of one writer (one who you of course have a pre-existing problem with) for a major event of crossover significance? Nah. Of course, if a writer you liked wrote this issue, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

As I've already said I had issues from Morrison before Batman Inc #18, where's the problem in that?

You first reason doesn't make sense, "It's an absurd reason to hate a writer because A) he created the character in question, and if he doesn't create the character then the character can't get killed off in the first place" unless I said "I hate Grant Morrison and I wish he never wrote Batman!", which I didn't, I even said that I liked his earlier writing. Heck, I actually enjoyed Batman and Son. Again, though, you insist that it's absurd to be angry with a writer because they've killed a character off if they've created said character, which does not make any sense. Why do you think that people are restricted to a inherent sense of gratitude towards a writer for introduing the character in the first place? This is a rhetorical question by the way as I know you can't answer it because it's a nonsensical sentimentality which you just keep repeating rather than explaining.

Your second reason: "B) it's hilariously naive to think that he won't be back" I fear you've gotten so worked up over me having a differing opinion to yourself that you seem to have missed quite a few points in my earlier posts. Here's a quote, just to jog your memory. "Well apparently DC are saying dead is dead in the New 52, Harry but even though I'm doubtful of that I have this feeling that this maybe one instance where they will leave a character dead, at least for a considerable amount of time." No one stays dead in comics, if there's one truth to the medium, that's it, but that doesn't mean that a character's death won't have a significant impact on the titles they feature in and as I've said, one of my biggest cocnerns is that this undermines the ending of Synder's Death of the Family, which I feel opened up more intersting possibilities for the Bruce / Damian relationship which will now, sadly, not be explored.

In regards to your third reason, of course DC were aware of Morrison killing off Damian, the sheer number of cross-over covers and stories already being announced in the wake of his death, his evident of that. And some are speculating that even Snyder has known for some time, hence his gradual introduction of Harper Row, who many assume will be next to don the Robin mantle. So what? I'm supposed to say "Damn you, Morrison, the DC editorial team and everyone else who was implicit in this event?" No, Batman Inc is Morrison's baby. He's gone on and on and on about how it is the final part in his epic, long Batman saga that started way back with The Black Glove. The buck lies with him. Just like a director is blamed for a bad movie, rather than a long list of all the cast and crew who were a part of the production.

You're suggesting that I wouldn't have a problem with this if it was wriiten by a writer I liked. I'm not sure what you're getting at here? I've said that I don't like how Damian died. And I don't like Morrison's writing. If it was written by a writer I liked, it would have most likely been written in a way I liked? Or are you just saying that my problem is the name on the writer credit and I would have liked it if it didn't have Morrison's name on it? If so, I don't know what you're basing that on at all. I've a;ready said I have enjoyed Morrison's stories in the past and I even gave Batman inc a second chance after the reboot. I'm actually very critical of even writers I like. Check back on this very thread and you'll see that intially I didn't even like Synder's Batman. In fact, I really don't know why we're having this "discussion". I don't like Morrison. I don't like what he's done to Damian. (I'm not the only one.) You do. And you seem to have a problem with me because I'm of an opposing opinion, going as far to tell me my opinion is absurd and illogical. I don't get it.

Grant Morisson's work from Batman And Son through to Batman & Robin Must Die! include some of the best Batman comics in years. It was interesting, exciting, and included more twists and turns than you can really keep up with (which is why I like to read story's in trades instead of collect the comics). R.I.P. is one of the greatest Batman stories I've ever read.

Unfortunately, the first run of Batman Incorporated was all over the fucking place. There were some decent stories there, but also some crap, and it seemed like he was trying to cram too much in in too short a space of time. Having said that, Leviathan Strikes! was great. I've yet to read any of the current run on Batman Incorporated (though I keep track on what's happening), but I'm hoping it's gotten better. I do like that he's apparently all but ignored the New 52 (which I think was a terrible idea in the first place, and still do despite how awesome Snyder's stories have been), and with only minor adjustments just carried on telling the story he wanted to tell in the first place.

I don't think killing Damian had anything to do with the waning popularity of the title, myself, though. There'd been rumours since Damian was first introduced to the comics that Morrison intended to kill him eventually, so I think this was also his intention, and "hating" a writer for telling the story he wanted to tell is stupid. Maybe hate the story, but why would you take it out on the writer? I think it's to be commended no matter what I think of the result when someone does what they want. When this is collected in trade I'll read it myself, but I guess I've always been of the opinion that a movie/record/book, etc does not belong to me, so it's my problem if I don't like it.

One criticism I do have is that this happened less than a month after the end of Death Of The Family. The big storyline which was supposed to be the most traumatic event that Batman and his family had faced in a long time, etc. And then, BOOM! A completely different story kills off his son? Surely that's more traumatic than what the Joker put him through!

Wonder if this has something to do with Batman Inc not being as big a hit as Morrison thought it was going to be?

Probably because it made no sense in the context of the rebooted Batman and overall was a pretty silly idea. The whole reboot made a lot of ideas Morrison was running with rather pointless and led a lot of his ideas into dead ends (not that it stopped him still trying to use them anyway).

You also have to admit that this particular issue of Batman Incorporated was rather poorly written tat, messily constructed with very little gravitas or emotional content considering the subject.

You also have to admit that this particular issue of Batman Incorporated was rather poorly written tat, messily constructed with very little gravitas or emotional content considering the subject.

I thought the scenes between him and Dick were nicely done, the whole "We were the best Richard, no matter what anyone thinks" bit was pretty poignant but it went downhill fast from there. The fallout in Batman & Robin and Batman will have much more gravitas I imagine but this has really fucked up the Death of a Family denouement. What annoys me is the punk way Damian went down (seriously, he knew better than to take on The Heretic alone) and the fact it was done in a title that has paid no notice to current continuity. As far as the relationship between current bat titles goes it's akin to dying offscreen.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

I get the impression Morrison lost the passion for the characters and story a long time ago and has fallen back into his hack for hire persona (which has has had a tendency to do quite often in the past). As i said, when he is good he is very good, when he is bad he is awful.

Trouble I have is that I don't pick up Batman Inc BUT! I do pick up the main 4 Bat titles so may now have to wait & hope for 2nd or 3rd print run. Speaking of the main 4 what'll happen now to Batman & Robin carry on with the title or surprise surprise start afresh so as to go with yet another number 1 issue?

Trouble I have is that I don't pick up Batman Inc BUT! I do pick up the main 4 Bat titles so may now have to wait & hope for 2nd or 3rd print run. Speaking of the main 4 what'll happen now to Batman & Robin carry on with the title or surprise surprise start afresh so as to go with yet another number 1 issue?

The next few issues will have other members of the bat family filling in and the title will reflect this. Issue 19 will be Batman and Red Robin followed by Batman and Red Hood and Batman and Nightwing. I'm not sure what's happening in the long term though.

< Message edited by Harry Tuttle -- 6/3/2013 10:05:58 AM >

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

Trouble I have is that I don't pick up Batman Inc BUT! I do pick up the main 4 Bat titles so may now have to wait & hope for 2nd or 3rd print run. Speaking of the main 4 what'll happen now to Batman & Robin carry on with the title or surprise surprise start afresh so as to go with yet another number 1 issue?

I'm guessing there'll be a few issues that focuses on Bruce dealing with Damian's loss, and then eventually either Tim will return as Robin, or Harper Row will become the new Robin. If not, then I guess we'll hear about a cancellation soon, because you can't go too long without a Robin in a book called Batman & Robin.

I've just read Batman Inc. 7 and 8 and quite liked them. I've grown to prefer Morrison's take on Batman over the years, having grown tired of the rather bland 'woe-is-me' superheroics the character has suffered under over the years. Morrison has at least injected a sense of chaos and fun into the comic. Though I found RIP and Return of Bruce Wayne pretty dreadful stuff, I really enjoyed Batman & Robin and Batman Inc. for the most part.

I thought it was fitting that Damian went into his final battle alongside Dick Grayson. That panel where he says "We were the best. No matter what anyone says" was really affecting. I've said this before but I really think bringing back Bruce Wayne was a mistake. The Dick-as-Batman and Damian-as-Robin team were the best Batman stories in a long time (Snyder's Grayson-centric Detective Comics were also better than his current run on the main title, in my opinion). I wonder if Morrison wanted to keep it that way sometimes. It drew a line under the 80s iteration of the character that has lasted until today and allowed for a new type of Batman comic to emerge. Snyder's run started off strong enough but ultimately it's been a bit repetitive and lacklustre in terms of story and character with Capullo's dynamic art saving the day most of the time. It's like the New 52 un-rebooted the character in a weird way.

I think Morrison has every right to kill off Damian. If nothing else, he's probably trying to protect the character from DC. Damian is his creation and maybe he's better off going out as himself rather than being Jason Todd-ed. I'm sure he'll return soon enough regardless.

I'd quite like to re-read all of Morrison's run on the character. It's an imperfect beast no doubt, but let's be honest: you never knew what was going to happen next. And you can't say that about many other superhero comics these days.

Another minor rant about the current Catwoman train wreck. Sorry! (I know, why do I keep buying it? I'm a sucker for punishment!)

Issue 17. The writing's ok (much better than usual for Nocenti), as is the art - most of it actually makes sense for once!

No, my problem lies with the cover of this particular issue.

It shows Catwoman evading cops on a motorcycle & the tagline is "Nine Lives at 99 Miles Per Hour!".

Does any of this happen in this issue? No. The closest we get to it is Catwoman possibly hitching a lift on the back of a moped ridden by a fat bloke (the way it's drawn it's hard to tell if she's actually on it or just standing behind it as he rides away)

So after reading Batman#18, which had an amazing cover but was very disapointing inside, it seems clear now Harper Row will become the new Robin. I had liked the character in her previous appearances but here she just came across as a mish-mash of Stephanie Brown and Tim Drake and nowhere near as likeable. In fact she pissed me off throughout the entire issue. the best part was when Batman broke her nose and even that was laughably executed.

So after reading Batman#18, which had an amazing cover but was very disapointing inside, it seems clear now Harper Row will become the new Robin. I had liked the character in her previous appearances but here she just came across as a mish-mash of Stephanie Brown and Tim Drake and nowhere near as likeable. In fact she pissed me off throughout the entire issue. the best part was when Batman broke her nose and even that was laughably executed.

I'd be surprised if that was the case, at least initially. I reckon it'll be a while before anyone else takes the mantle of Robin.

Anyone else read Batman & Robin #18? Heartbreaking stuff.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

So after reading Batman#18, which had an amazing cover but was very disapointing inside, it seems clear now Harper Row will become the new Robin. I had liked the character in her previous appearances but here she just came across as a mish-mash of Stephanie Brown and Tim Drake and nowhere near as likeable. In fact she pissed me off throughout the entire issue. the best part was when Batman broke her nose and even that was laughably executed.

I'd be surprised if that was the case, at least initially. I reckon it'll be a while before anyone else takes the mantle of Robin.

Anyone else read Batman & Robin #18? Heartbreaking stuff.

The silent issue? I still say Tomasi/Gleason/Gray are doing better Batman stories than Snyder and Capullo, to be honest.

So after reading Batman#18, which had an amazing cover but was very disapointing inside, it seems clear now Harper Row will become the new Robin. I had liked the character in her previous appearances but here she just came across as a mish-mash of Stephanie Brown and Tim Drake and nowhere near as likeable. In fact she pissed me off throughout the entire issue. the best part was when Batman broke her nose and even that was laughably executed.

I'd be surprised if that was the case, at least initially. I reckon it'll be a while before anyone else takes the mantle of Robin.

Anyone else read Batman & Robin #18? Heartbreaking stuff.

The silent issue? I still say Tomasi/Gleason/Gray are doing better Batman stories than Snyder and Capullo, to be honest.

That's the one, the panel with Alfred looking at the unfinished portrait and the final page were pretty rough on the old heartstrings. I knew the Batman & Robin team would knock the fallout of Damian's death out of the park. I'd say Tomasi and co certainly wrote a better Robin than Morrison did and were at least on a par with Snyder/Capullo. It'll be interesting to see this week's Nightwing issue, Damian had a more interesting relationship with Dick IMO than he did with Bruce.

I think Snyder had some absolutely cracking issues in the DOAF arc but the death of Damian in Batman Inc pretty much makes the whole crossover moot so it's lost a lot of it's impact. To be honest, as much as I enjoyed the Court of Owls stuff I'd still say may favourite Snyder written Batman stuff was the pre New 52 Black Mirror. It probably helps that he has Grayson as Batman though.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle To be honest, as much as I enjoyed the Court of Owls stuff I'd still say may favourite Snyder written Batman stuff was the pre New 52 Black Mirror. It probably helps that he has Grayson as Batman though.

Agreed. Court of Owls started great but that last twist nad issue were a dud. I wasn't impressed with Death of a Family at all though. Tedious stuff for the most part (I liked the central idea of it but wasn't too impressed with its execution). I'v said it plenty of times before but Grayson made for a better Batman than Bruce Wayne. Morrison said in a recent interview he would have liked to have written Batman & Robin for much longer; presumably DC had different ideas and cut it short. Considering how B&R was the best Batman book of the last decade at the time, that's a real shame.

Both of them quitting before their first issues are released. I know Diggle finished scripting his first arc on Action Comics, which Tony Daniel is completing but I've no idea how far Fialkov got with any Lanterns stuff. Reading between the lines it seems like some heavy handed editorial issues but it could be the fault of the writers as well I guess, maybe for taking too much on or for expecting greater freedom than they were promised in the first place. Either way it doesn't really reflect well on DC IMO as this seems to be happening quite a bit.

The fallout of this better not be that Robert Venditti's extra Lanterns workload causes him to drop X-O Manowar because that would seriously piss me off, he's been killing it so far.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!